Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company • Hacker News Board

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#91

Post by dhh » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:03 PM UTC

dansingerman wrote: post #4

While I totally buy what this espouses, I think it is probably incredibly hard to scale. They are doing well if they keep things flat(ish) for 26 employees. I can't really see it working at all for > 50. And while they may not have anyone with the job title CTO, I'd be very surprised if DHH was anything other than the de facto CTO.

Why does it have to scale? 37signals took 11 years to get to 26 people. It might take us another 11 to get to 50. We can optimize for that future when and if it arrives. But making your environment worse today because you worry about some possibly maybe future is the essence of premature optimization.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#92

Post by billybob » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:18 PM UTC

hdctambien wrote: post #68

dugmartin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some lovely muck over here.

Is this getting downvoted because people didn't catch the Monty Python joke? Or because they didn't like this specific reference (but accept the parent's reference)?

Maybe because it's a misquote. It's "lovely filth."

(Also, the committee only has to ratify the officer's decision with a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs.)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#93

Post by jdp23 » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:18 PM UTC

meric wrote: post #13

michaelchisari wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a different industry, but take a look at Semco SA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler Their industrial democracy approach has scaled quite well, with 3000 employees.

Maverick: The Success Story Behind the World's Most Unusual Workplace, by Ricardo Semler. Costs $10 at Amazon. Worth it.

His book "The 7-day Weekend" is good too.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#94

Post by dhh » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:21 PM UTC

terryjsmith wrote: post #37

There seems to be a rift here between what people are good at/what they want to do now and what they want to do later. I consider myself a good programmer, but it's not where I want to be forever. I have always wanted to branch out and learn multiple facets (management, service, sales, etc.) and this seems like it would be limiting in that regard. I guess I just wouldn't be the target of 37signals? Without wanting to…

People branch out all the time. Part of being flat is that there's very little division. If you are a programmer who has a good idea for a new workflow process (i.e. management design), you propose it, and we usually try it. If you're a designer who want to learn more programming, we encourage it.

You can easily have a big impact on all the other domains of the business even if you're just a programmer.

Hell, we just had Craig Davey switch from being a programmer to being a designer recently!

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#95

Post by dhh » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:24 PM UTC

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #6

I believe some sociologists found that personal relationships begin to break down at about 150. Beyond that it is very difficult to maintain meaningful interaction in person. Online relationship numbers are much higher so maybe a distributed team like 37Signals can get away with this for a while longer.

You should never say never, but I don't think we'll ever be 150 people. I think there's a good chance we'll never even be 50 people.

Although, as many others have pointed out, there are some great examples of huge companies running similar strategies to good effect (Semco etc).

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#96

Post by jdp23 » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:25 PM UTC

Wolf_Larsen wrote: post #75

hapless wrote: post #69

"The fairest rules are those to which everyone would agree if they did not know how much power they would have." This quote really, deeply bothered me. One of the major differences between alpha males and the rest of the population is that they will always assume they'll end up in the top spot. Your prototypical alpha male won't even consider the odds of being on the bottom in that lottery. To push it further, those…

You aren't making a very clear point. Are you saying that : "Alpha males will always assume they'll end up in the top spot, so when they choose rules for a situation regarding two competing agents, their choices will favor the agent in with the most authority"? If so, then you are assuming a context in which the agents of the situation can change the roles in which they are assigned permanently. That is not the case…

I thought hapless' point was very clear:

"A "flat" structure overvalues the opinions of the loud and aggressive, with little room for more pensive contributors, especially women."

Coincidentally enough, Jason leads off the article with an anecdote about a talented woman leaving the company because of their flat structure.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#97

Post by gvb » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:30 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #32

asolove wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 "managing isn't something everyone is good at." How many bad developers get moved to management to keep them from causing trouble, and then cause even more?

Isn't that basically the Peter Principle?

It is the Dilbert Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_principle

"[C]ompanies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management [...] in order to limit the amount of damage they are capable of doing."

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#98

Post by rosenjon » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:32 PM UTC

dhh wrote: post #90

sili wrote: post #82

I like the idea of keeping people closer to what they are good at. However I'm afraid this strategy will backfire on your employees if they are forced to leave to another company for whatever reason. In an environment where every company does not have this flat hierarchy it is strange to see a person who has spent 10 years in one place and has not advanced to some managerial position. New employer will think that he…

We're optimizing for having the best work environment today. Prioritizing what some employer somewhere else might think a decade from now over improving working conditions today seems like a bad trade.

I don't understand why this has to be a binary choice. The real issue at hand appears to be that people get promoted to positions for which they are not well-suited, and then stay there, because they do a lousy job (agree that this sometimes happens... although eventually they probably get fired).

What if "promotion" doesn't necessarily mean domain over other people, which seems to be the other issue. There can only be one SVP of Technology, for example, in most organizations.

What if, like in school, you get "degrees" for achieving things within the organization? If you launch a major new product successfully, you achieve a "master programmer" honor, and the associated pay benefits. This doesn't necessarily give you any right to control others in the organization, but it rewards employees for stellar performance. They can then put that on their resume if they go to another company.

I would argue it is a little short-sighted to say that the company can exist in a vacuum, when every other company in the world, for the most part, operates with a title. That doesn't mean you have to play that game within the company, but you should at least accommodate employees' concerns that they work for you for 10 years, and then can never get a comparable job because it looks like they never advanced. If they stay in your good graces, it probably isn't an issue, since I'm sure you will give them a good recommendation. But if not, they could be in big trouble when they go to find a new job.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#99

Post by bowmande » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:36 PM UTC

ibejoeb wrote: post #73

It's unrealistic to not promote people. If you run a "flat" organization, you're telling your employees "I don't care that your resume indicates no progression." That's a real career limiter, and it can be perceived as an underhanded way to retain talent. Also, more pragmatically, how realistic is it to have 30 direct reports?

I would think working for 37 signals alone would be a big enough evidence of how awesome you are. Also the kind of company that is looking at your "progression" probably isn't the place to go.

Re: Jason Fried: Why I Run a Flat Company

#100

Post by dailyrorschach » Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 6:37 PM UTC

tomlin wrote: post #84

dailyrorschach wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I am a dreaded project manager, I agree mostly to what you are saying. But in the field I work in, advertising, I do think that its necessary and that my value is additive. My responsibility is mainly to be a shit umbrella, so my creative and developers can do work, especially when we're all working on multiple clients. I'm not doing my job when I have to have them in meetings, in fact we don't meet save for f…

I would say in high-output environments that a PM is a good thing, if the PM in question is good at being a PM. I've met a few, but many more terrible PMs unfortunately. Oftentimes PMs (or better , their organization culture + workflow) have thrown a wrench or 2 into production and caused cascading failures because they forgot a detail, or couldn't admit to fault. The culture is surely to blame amidst most of these c…

The central problem I see is most PMs don't want to be PMs, and are tricked into being hired as account people. I like what I do, and my team knows I have their back, we do quite well together.